social security

Democrats can be counted on every election cycle to play the social security fear card and the race card.

Count on it.

 

Right from the very start all SS funds were replaced by govt IOUs in the form of treasury bonds and the cash went to the general fund and was spent for current budget items. There NEVER was a SS fund that contained real money except for current SS expenses.

 

Hey, I can cut & paste, too:
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]

Here are the FACTS as obtained from the Social Security website which operates under the control of the GOP.​

[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Q1. Which political party took Social Security from the independent trust fund and put it into the general fund so that Congress could spend it?
A1: There has never been any change in the way the Social Security program is financed or the way that Social Security payroll taxes are used by the federal government. The Social Security Trust Fund was created in 1939 as part of the Amendments enacted in that year. From its inception, the Trust Fund has always worked the same way. The Social Security Trust Fund has never been "put into the general fund of the government." [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Most likely this question comes from a confusion between the financing of the Social Security program and the way the Social Security Trust Fund is treated in federal budget accounting. Starting in 1969 (due to action by the Johnson Administration in 1968) the transactions to the Trust Fund were included in what is known as the "unified budget." This means that every function of the federal government is included in a single budget. This is sometimes described by saying that the Social Security Trust Funds are "on-budget." This budget treatment of the Social Security Trust Fund continued until 1990 when the Trust Funds were again taken "off-budget." This means only that they are shown as a separate account in the federal budget. But whether the Trust Funds are "on-budget" or "off-budget" is primarily a question of accounting practices--it has no affect on the actual operations of the Trust Fund itself. [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Q2: Which political party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]A2: There was never any provision of law making the Social Security taxes paid by employees deductible for income tax purposes. In fact, the 1935 law expressly forbid this idea, in Section 803 of Title VIII. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif](The text of Title VIII. can be found elsewhere on our website.) [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Q3. Which political party started taxing Social Security annuities?
A3. The taxation of Social Security began in 1984 following passage of a set of Amendments in 1983, which were signed into law by President Reagan in April 1983. These amendments passed the Congress in 1983 on an overwhelmingly bi-partisan vote. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]The basic rule put in place was that up to 50% of Social Security benefits could be added to taxable income, if the taxpayer's total income exceeded certain thresholds.

The taxation of benefits was a proposal which came from the Greenspan Commission appointed by President Reagan and chaired by Alan Greenspan, who is presently serving as Chairman of the Federal Reserve. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]The full text of the Greenspan Commission report is available on our website. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]President's Reagan's signing statement for the 1983 Amendments can also be found on our website. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]A detailed explanation of the provisions of the 1983 law is also available on the website.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Q4. Which political party increased the taxes on Social Security annuities?[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]A4. In 1993, legislation was enacted which had the effect of increasing the tax put in place under the 1983 law. It raised from 50% to 85% the portion of Social Security benefits subject to taxation; but the increased percentage only applied to "higher income" beneficiaries. Beneficiaries of modest incomes might still be subject to the 50% rate, or to no taxation at all, depending on their overall taxable income. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]This change in the tax rate was one provision in a massive Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA) passed that year. The OBRA 1993 legislation was deadlocked in the Senate on a tie vote of 50-50 and Vice President Al Gore cast the deciding vote in favor of passage. President Clinton signed the bill into law on August 10, 1993.

(You can find a brief historical summary of the development of taxation of Social Security benefits on the Social Security website.) [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Q5. Which political party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?
A5. Neither immigrants nor anyone else is able to collect Social Security benefits without someone paying Social Security payroll taxes into the system. The conditions under which Social Security benefits are payable, and to whom, can be found in the pamphlets available on our website. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]The question confuses the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program with Social Security. SSI is a federal welfare program and no contributions, from immigrants or citizens or anyone else, is required for eligibility. Under certain conditions, immigrants can qualify for SSI benefits. The SSI program was an initiative of the Nixon Administration and was signed into law by President Nixon on October 30, 1972. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]An explanation of the basics of Social Security, and the distinction between Social Security and SSI, can be found on the Social Security website. [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif] You can check out the answers to these questions yourself at the Social Security Administrations website. http://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths2.html[/FONT]
​

Link to RedHogDiary

 

I imagine this is the source of RedhogDiary's blog:



http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/sschanges.asp

 

The information is much the same, but the wording is totally different....It appears he lifted his words from the SSA website itself. It has a page on internet myths. There is a link on the bottom of the Snopes web page you cited.

 

And Republicans play the war card and the cut taxes on the wealthy card. Count on it.

 

Cutting taxes on the rich, when they are overtaxed, is a surefire way to a robust economy. And over taxation of the rich is a surefire way to stall an economy

 

Thanks for posting the truth Daisy.

Jamie

 

Why shouldnt the rich keep their own money?

 

A flat tax rate will work how exactly? Even if you successfully lobbied to have ALL means-based assistance eliminated you are only getting rid of approximately 17% of all government spending, (federal, state, and local). Do you really believe a flat tax rate will cover the other 83% of government spending? Maybe when pigs fly. You would be placing an even greater burden on the middle class, not to mention the poor. People who really are not going to have the means to pay, unless of course the wealthy feel so generous about their change in tax status that they SIGNIFIGANTLY RAISE wages, because that is what it is going to take.


Taxes are a necessary consequence of living in civilized society. For that matter they are necessary for uncivilized societies as well. Our founders did not have a problem with taxation alone. Even they realized that taxes are a necessary evil to running a country. They had a problem with taxation without representation. Are you represented in government? Do you have a chance to vote for your representation? For that matter to the wealthy have a chance to vote for their representation? Are they represented in government? They probably more so than the average American Joe have a better chance at influencing their representation because they have money to throw liberally at politicians. I wouldn't feel all that sorry for them....


(and no that does not mean I am envious of them)

 

Wow. You got all that out of that question? It appears you have something to get off your chest prior to the statment I made.

 

Something like what? You're statement was in response to Hillclimbers was it not?

 

They should keep their own money, there is no doubt about it. In most cases, they earned it, and started as average, like most of us.

The facade of the thread is that either party cares about us keeping our earned money. Both parties have taxed us to the limit, spent like there is no tomorrow, run up huge deficits, controlled our lives, used power for their own corrupt purposes, and basically trashed the American people.

The differences between the two parties if there is any, have to be examined with a microscope. For example, the subject of this thread is social security. On the one hand, democrats attack republicans as trying to cut it on the elderly every election, when in fact, as pointed out above, it is a bankrupt system that was squandered by crooked politicians. On the other hand, republicans were in power of all branches for six years. They claim to be big time social security reformers, and did NOTHING to move the system to the private economy and stabilize the system.

On the one hand, the democrats tax us slightly more than the republicans, and spend, spend, spend. On the other hand, republicans cut taxes slightly, spend, spend, spend, and create massive federal deficits.

So the real question is, how can any of you with your long paragraphs, justify either party as helping the American people. It is a pathetic argument.

 

Socialists, communists and democrats all agree. Redistribution of wealth will keep them in power...

as long as it's not their wealth that's being redistributed

and

if they can get it done.:BangHead:

 

Right... like that 17% is oh so much worse than the other 83%. Heaven forbid! Why again are the Republicans so much better than anyone else? They have not reduced government spending anymore so than any other party or group, and time and time again have INCREASED their spending habits. They sure do have people snowed though. If everybody is arguing over the measly 17% used for assistance to those in need no one is going to notice how they are spending the other 83%. Which number is more important to you? IMO, it is certainly not the 17% given to those that truly need it.

 

Very good post. If you take this post, and post 1 from PS 104, put them together, you have a perfect picture of the state of our two party system.

 

This is why I refuse to join either party.

It is a good cop/bad cop routine.

Which party is more concerned with adhering to God's limits and roles for government?

Neither!

 

Sad indeed isn't it saturn...The tax burden on Americans is ridiculous. Most Americans are so polarized that we allow the government get away with such nonsense.

FTR, I have about as much disdain for Republicans as I do for Democrats. Neither party represents my views for the most part.